During college, my roommate and I took a spur-of-the-moment trip to Santa Monica. Short on funds, I played my guitar on the popular Third Street Promenade to earn some cash for food.
Sadly, such honest, entrepreneurial effort is a criminal act in Baltimore.
An ordinance recently passed by City Council states, “No person may perform as a street entertainer without having obtained a license to do so from the Board of Licenses for Street Entertainers.”
Simply put, Baltimore officials have decided that each would-be street-performing entrepreneur seeking voluntary contributions from passers-by will be forced to pay the government $25 for the privilege of expressing himself ? so long as a governmental board first approves the act.
The law blatantly violates the right to artistic expression clearly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Courts have struck down schemes regulating street performers in other cities including Seattle and Alexandria, Va.
The board?s official Web site suggests the licensing scheme will allow the city to “ensure the quality of the performers,” because “you don?t want just anyone blowing the trumpet.”
In July, the board held Baltimore?s first street performers? audition, and I applied for a license, along with my co-worker Dave Roland, a staff attorney with the Institute for Justice. IJ is a publicinterest law firm that protects citizens when arbitrary government actions would deny Constitutional rights, like freedom of expression.
Before our trip to Baltimore, I asked Lisa Kier, the special assistant to the president of the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, what to expect at the audition. At one point she said, “Honestly, we?re making this up as we go along.”
Dave registered as an orator and delivered an impassioned speech on the importance of the First Amendment. I signed up to play the Native American flute and auditioned along with two other hopeful entertainers. Of the roughly two-dozen performers, I was unquestionably the least-talented prospect. Yet I received a license, and Dave did not. (To watch our performances, visit http://ij.org/video/baltimore-license/) Apparently, in the eyes and ears of the government, I?m a step above just anyone blowing the flute.
As expected, no objective criteria existed for the board to determine who would win licenses and who would not. Dave?s repeated requests for this information from the government have gone unanswered. Even Catherine Pugh, who spearheaded the licensing scheme, has refused to respond.
Those of us who paid the fee and passed the audition were told to retrieve our government-issued badges at the Municipal Building. When I went to the appropriate office to receive my badge, a bureaucrat behind the counter coldly instructed me to talk to “the lady in the purple shirt,” who happened to be standing a few feet away. After waiting for the purple shirt lady for several minutes, she disappeared into the back room. Finally, I found someone who grudgingly walked over to a nearby box mere steps behind these “public servants,” grabbed my government-issued license and handed it to me.
So now I have the city?s approval to play the flute. But struggling artists and young entrepreneurs shouldn?t be forced to jump through such ridiculous hoops in order toexpress themselves creatively on the streets of Baltimore. America is supposed to be both the “Land of Opportunity” and the “Land of the Free.” Licensing laws such as Baltimore?s make a lie out of both of those proud nicknames.
Bob Ewing works at the Institute for Justice, which litigates nationwide in defense of economic liberty and free speech. For more information, visit www.ij.org.
